TRAIN Act: Copyright Owners Get New Subpoena Power Over AI Training Data, Presuming Guilt If Developers Don't Comply

The Transparency and Responsibility for Artificial Intelligence Networks Act, or the TRAIN Act, is a new proposal designed to give copyright owners a direct legal tool to investigate whether their work was used to train generative AI models. This isn't about suing yet; it’s about discovery—getting the receipts before filing a lawsuit. Under this bill, if you own the copyright to a photo, song, or article, and you have a "good-faith belief" that an AI developer used it to train their model, you can get a court clerk to issue a subpoena for records identifying your specific work in their training material.

Who’s on the Hook: Defining the Developer

This bill is hyper-specific about who qualifies as a developer. It targets anyone (or any government agency) that designs, codes, owns, or significantly modifies a generative AI model, and is involved in curating or using the training data. If you’re just a user of ChatGPT or Midjourney, you’re safe. But for the companies building these models—the ones pouring massive amounts of data into them—this creates a new, mandatory disclosure process. The bill defines Generative AI Models as those that create new, synthetic content (like text, images, or audio) based on what they learned from Training Material (the input works).

The Subpoena Shortcut: From Belief to Records

Normally, getting this kind of internal company data requires a full-blown lawsuit. The TRAIN Act creates a shortcut. A copyright owner files a sworn statement claiming their good-faith belief that their work was used. If the paperwork is correct, the court clerk must issue the subpoena immediately, bypassing judicial review at this initial stage. The developer then has to quickly hand over the requested records or copies of the training material that identify the requester’s specific work. The person receiving the data must keep it strictly confidential and can only use it to protect their rights.

The Presumption of Guilt: A Major Shift in Burden

This is where things get serious for AI developers. If a developer fails to comply with a properly issued subpoena, the bill creates a rebuttable presumption that they copied the copyrighted work. Think of it like this: if you refuse to show your homework, the teacher automatically assumes you didn't do it, and now you have to prove you did. This shifts the burden of proof heavily onto the developer, potentially forcing them to settle or disclose proprietary training information just to avoid being automatically assumed guilty of infringement. For developers, this means the administrative headache of complying with the subpoena is far less risky than ignoring it.

The Double-Edged Sword: Protecting Against Abuse

While the bill aims to help copyright holders, it also includes a check on bad behavior. If a copyright owner files a subpoena request in bad faith—meaning they are just trying to fish for information or harass a company without a genuine belief their work was used—the court can impose sanctions, similar to penalties for frivolous lawsuits. This is meant to discourage people from weaponizing this new, streamlined process. For busy copyright holders, this offers a specific, targeted way to get information, but they need to be sure they have a solid reason before they pull the trigger on a subpoena.